Mental events obey no laws, and that is how freedom and determinism coexist
Davidson answers the mind-body problem with token identity: a mental event and a physical event are the same event, causation requires a covering law, but there are no strict laws under mental descriptions — so determinism and freedom can both hold.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
Mind and body are identical at the token level, not the type level
Davidson starts from everyday causation: I see physical things out in the world, they cause sensations, the sensations prompt thoughts and decisions, and the decisions make my body move. So he rejects the Cartesian picture of a mind standing outside the causal order. His claim is that every mental event is identical to some brain event — but the identity holds at the level of tokens, not types: one and the same event can carry both a mental description and a physical one.
Acting for a reason is itself a causal relation
In the 1963 paper, Davidson is arguing against a view then shaped by Wittgenstein and Anscombe: that a reason merely places an action in a ‘logical space’ where it justifies itself, and is not a cause. He argues that rationalization — acting for a reason — is itself a species of causal relation. The key is that the same event admits different descriptions: describing it by the reason and describing it physically do not conflict, and the first does not rule out the second.
Reasons feel unlike causes only because we stand in the first person
The host uses 5+5=10 to show why reasons do not feel like causes: from the first person, I know that 5 plus 5 equals 10 because I can see that it equals 10; saying ‘one brain state caused another brain state, and then 10 popped out’ sounds bizarre. But from the third person, the action really can be described as a causal chain. The two domains are usually kept strictly apart, and Davidson wants to show they can hold at the same time.
Mental events enter causal relations yet obey no law
The paper opens with three principles: mental and physical interact causally; causation requires strict covering laws; and the mental is ‘anomalous’ — no strict deterministic law predicts and explains mental events. If the first two hold, the third looks false: if mental events sit inside this causal web, they ought to have a lawlike character. But intuitively we have no laws describing desires and actions, because a whole network of beliefs and desires sits in between. Davidson's aim is to show all three are consistent.
Mind and body are one token, with no bridging laws
Two dimensions mark out four positions: whether there are psychophysical laws, and whether mind and body are one thing or two. Nomological monism is type identity theory; nomological dualism is parallelism or epiphenomenalism; anomalous dualism is Cartesian dualism; Davidson takes anomalous monism — a mental event and a physical event are the same token, but there are no bridging laws. This position preserves supervenience while avoiding reductionism.
Supervenience is not reducibility, and the truth predicate shows why
Davidson draws an analogy with two languages, L and L': L contains purely physical sentences, and L' adds the predicate ‘true in L’. Saying ‘my foot moved two feet’ is a physical sentence; but saying that this sentence is true brings in truth — and truth belongs to the mental or semantic level. Tarski's theorem shows that within a consistent language there is no syntactic predicate that applies to all and only the true sentences, and therefore supervenience does not imply reducibility.
Stimulating the amygdala causes fear but still yields no psychological law
The host confronts the scientific objection head-on: stimulating the amygdala can cause fear — isn't that a law? Davidson's reply is that at the token level you can pick out a mental content using physical concepts, but at the type level no scientific law can be established; what you get is probabilistic generalization. Because beliefs and desires have to be explained through further beliefs and desires, this holism means mental descriptions can never be replaced item by item by neuroscience.
In their own words · checked verbatim
I know that 5 plus 5 equals 10 because I can see that 5 plus 5 equals 10.
if you desire.To go to the store.Well, you know, that's a good reason for you to go to the store.Did that cause you is there a law? That says every time someone has a desire to go to the store, they will go
I can always just decide not to go to the store, even if I want to go to the store.
we do know that we can reliably stimulate certain parts of the brain to get a certain category of mental activity. There are these general connections There just aren't these very, very specific law like connections as there are in the physical sciences
if you say it is true.That my foot.Move 2 feet. Well, you're already on this, bringing in.By bringing in truth.You're bringing in the mental.
Figures
| Publication years of the two papers | 1963; 1970 | 0:00 |
| Possible combinations of mind-body positions | 4 (laws or no laws × monism/dualism) | 36:05 |
Glossary
- token-token identity
- Every mental event is identical to some physical event, but mental types are not identical to physical types.
- type-type identity
- Mental types map one-to-one onto physical types, so psychophysical laws exist.
- anomalous monism
- Mind and body are identical at the token level, but there are no strict psychophysical laws.
- nomological
- Pertaining to laws of nature; Davidson holds that causation requires a covering law.
- supervenience
- Mental properties are fixed by physical properties, without thereby being reducible to physical laws.
How to listen
Philosophers and AI practitioners who want to understand how a reason moves a body; anyone interested in the mind-body problem and the limits of scientific reductionism.
The Shopify ad and the formal Tarski proof can be skipped — grasping the analogy is enough.